4 ms·

> There are options to solve problems that don't require a change in the outcome you desire. Mainly something along the lines of forcing the companies profiting

> There are options to solve problems that don't require a change in the outcome you desire. Mainly something along the lines of forcing the companies profiting from this to pay a person a reasonable wage to act as the social aspect that will be missing. So the job market can be unaffected. Essentially removing most economic incentive to deploy self-driving cars at all?

iinnPP 3y ago
Market dominance would still allow for it to be profitable. Is money to goal or is it a better society? Less pollution, less waste, more social interaction, and increased safety. Less colored paper. Surely the government has an interest in financially incentivising this development. Especially given a decrease in road wear and tear, lower climate impact and surely any number of other benefits.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > money to goal or is it a better society More people taking cheaper trips in cleaner vehicles is a better society in my book.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    Absolutely. That is the today impact. What about when it's Waymo One or Uber Zero. Support is GPT7 Two. No call center jobs, no driving jobs, less supporting jobs, less money flow, more homelessness, more violence. Decreasing compensation for the jobs remaining due to increased competition. Short term profits go brrr?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Support is GPT7 Two Have you tried to get support on Uber, Lyft or a taxi? > No call center jobs, no driving jobs, less supporting jobs, less money flow, more homelessness, more violence. Decreasing compensation for the jobs remaining due to increased competition It's difficult to distinguish this from neo-Luddism. Maybe there is nothing productive for those people to do. If so, we can address it then. But the history of technological revolutions–from the agrarian to the internet–suggests the opposite. (We are, after all, discussing jobs which first arose around a century ago.)
    - mlyle 3y ago
      I read your comment as: "Let's make artificial fake work to make sure that people have something to do and money." Hopefully we can do better than that.

iinnPP 3y ago

Market dominance would still allow for it to be profitable. Is money to goal or is it a better society? Less pollution, less waste, more social interaction, and increased safety. Less colored paper. Surely the government has an interest in financially incentivising this development. Especially given a decrease in road wear and tear, lower climate impact and surely any number of other benefits.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> money to goal or is it a better society More people taking cheaper trips in cleaner vehicles is a better society in my book.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  Absolutely. That is the today impact. What about when it's Waymo One or Uber Zero. Support is GPT7 Two. No call center jobs, no driving jobs, less supporting jobs, less money flow, more homelessness, more violence. Decreasing compensation for the jobs remaining due to increased competition. Short term profits go brrr?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Support is GPT7 Two Have you tried to get support on Uber, Lyft or a taxi? > No call center jobs, no driving jobs, less supporting jobs, less money flow, more homelessness, more violence. Decreasing compensation for the jobs remaining due to increased competition It's difficult to distinguish this from neo-Luddism. Maybe there is nothing productive for those people to do. If so, we can address it then. But the history of technological revolutions–from the agrarian to the internet–suggests the opposite. (We are, after all, discussing jobs which first arose around a century ago.)
  - mlyle 3y ago
    I read your comment as: "Let's make artificial fake work to make sure that people have something to do and money." Hopefully we can do better than that.